Regarding the greatest good for the greatest number, there's a rather famous short story by Ursula LeGuin that I recommend reading. It's titled " The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" and I believe you can find a free copy online. It's an interesting take on the idea.
Is it a book? Do I not also remember that Spock said something to the same effect in that movie where he "died" in the vacuum chamber?
As far as observations and consequences, it seems to me that that is so clearly of importance to be unquestionable. In fact, seeing your cites, it seems to me that probably Frances Wright incorporated some of that in her discussion of causation in A Few Days in Athens. And those influences shouldn't be surprising since she dedicated her work to Jeremy Bentham (and so she certainly shared your enthusiasm for at least some of that work).
As to holding the happiness of the entire world as equal to that of my own and my family and friends, that's equally clear - but in the reverse -- most people do not hold to that opinion at all except an abstract ideal that they know does not comport with reality. In fact, that seems to me to be much more of an artifact of Christianity or some other type of universalist religion than something that I observe to be true.
I guess you could say that because I believe in observations and in observing the consequences of actions in the real world, I could never hold the happiness of every member of the entire human race in abstract as entitled to my equal concern as the happiness of my family and friends. And of course taken to its logical conclusion, the happiness of the "greatest number" FAR outweighs the happiness of myself and my friends, in quantity.
Which is why Daniel, with all due respect to you, I have always found the idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" to be nonsense, or worse. It seems to me that it's a prescription for the worst kind of totalitarian despotism which could only work by a small elite deciding what the "greatest good of the greatest number" is by fiat, and then enforcing that (by force) on everyone else.
But regardless of whether I am right or wrong on that, the most important part is that I do observe that not everyone agrees with that formula. So to subject ourselves to that formula while the great bulk of humanity rejects it seems to me to be foolhardy at best. But since I am sure that the originators of Utilitarianism were no fools, just like the founders of Abrahamism were no fools, I feel sure that they had another agenda -- likely the same agenda as the Abrahamists. And I think these same observations are why you won't see any sense of "greatest good of the greatest number" in Epicurus at all. You find emphasis on personal pleasure and the pleasure of your friends (which really derives from the first) but you find little if any reference to the rest of the world in abstract, except to note that some people cannot be made friends and must be treated with distance, or as enemies.
**Visualizing Principal Doctrine 8** "No pleasure is a bad thing in itself: but the means which produce some pleasures bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures."
This doctrine has many implications, of which two are not to be missed. The first implication is the most familiar: some pleasurable experiences bring with them more pain than they are worth. That point may seem obvious, but it is clear that many of us need constant reminders! The second point comes first in position, but is frequently overlooked or downplayed because people who look to religion or "virtue" find it unattractive: No pleasure is a bad thing in itself. The reason for this statement is that as Epicurus points out, Nature gives living things only one test - the feeling of pleasure or pain - for whether a thing is ultimately "bad" or "good." If a thing is pleasurable, then we know that by Nature, and the feeling of pleasure is itself the ultimate judge of what is "good."
The issue, as Epicurus points out, is not that there is a list or ranking, either by the gods or by "reason" of "things which are good" and "things which are bad." The issue is instead, and simply, that the pursuit of some experiences which are good/pleasurable brings more experiences that are bad/pain than they are worth to us.
Epicurus has previously in the Principal Doctrines pointed out that Pleasure should not be thought of as insatiable and therefore rejected as the goal of life. A life of pleasure is a reasonable goal because it is attainable: Pleasure has a natural limit, in that when our experience is filled with pleasure, no greater pleasure can be experienced - the content of our experience (seen as a vessel) is then full, and only the details can be varied. Here Epicurus tells as that any and all pleasures are good, and can theoretically be part of that full pleasure experience, but that some pleasures, if chosen, will make detract from optimum pleasure, because they bring more pain than they are worth.
The point that some pleasures bring more pain than they are worth is one we need to constantly remember, but most of us understand it and appreciate that it is without question true.
The point that no pleasure is intrinsically bad, however, is one that many people fail to appreciate, or worse - they reject it as incompatible with their theology or their sense of "virtue" or "being a good person." Such people want to think that there is a god, or some eternal ideal, which justifies their own ranking of activity as "morally worthy" or "morally unworthy." That is the point which most people need to really think about and let sink in. No god and no set of ideal forms validates their choice of how to live. In reality, there is only Nature, and Nature gives only pleasure and pain by which to decide how to live.
--------------------------
More graphics for Principal Doctrine 8 can be found here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/gallery/in…e-list/195-pd8/
1-
"once the general happiness is recognised as the ethical standard
Yes this is exactly what is in contention and is not self- evident. Many people do not recognize "the general happiness" as the ethical standard, and if he is simply asserting it without some kind of proof then he is without foundation.
As to truth that applies to all places, times, and circumstances and it truly universal (throughout the infinite and eternal universe) I think we are far from being able to establish anything in those terms, especially in the field of ethics. The life of the "gods" is different from the life of "men" because of their circumstances, not because there is a universal force which makes it so. It is certainly possible to generalize within a certain set of facts, such as "all humans eventually die" and "death is nothing to us" but those general observations are based on experience rather than a force which would allow us to say that such and such "always must" be the case. That is the difference between reasoning by observation, while keeping in mind the limits of observation, vs attempting to call into existence "universal principles" which exist only in our minds and have no true existence outside our minds.
Diogenes Laertius: "They [Epicureans] affirm that .... there are two kinds of inquiry, the one concerned with things, the other with nothing but words."
Letter to Herodotus: "In the first place, Herodotus, you must understand what it is that words denote, in order that by reference to this we may be in a position to test opinions, inquiries, or problems, so that our proofs may not run on untested ad infinitum, nor the terms we use be empty of meaning. For the primary signification of every term employed must be clearly seen, and ought to need no proving; this being necessary, if we are to have something to which the point at issue or the problem or the opinion before us can be referred.
Someone wanting to research into this question could refer to Philodemus' "On Methods of Inference" for a part of the Epicurean argument on this.
OK those are good quotes from Bentham on pleasure and pain. Do you know how he then reaches "greatest good for greatest number" from that, however? I am not aware of a way to do that other than reference to some Ideal which i think Epicurus would say does not exist, because strictly speaking there are many people whom we have no contact with, or are even our enemies, such that what is good for the "greatest number" would have no necessary relationship to us purely on the basis of number.
As to this:
"all truth is something that is 'true to us' or 'true to a normal human being in those same circumstances.'"
I absolutely agree. I believe this is called "universality"? The mormons call it "eternal truth" - a truth which is eternally true, no matter the circumstance, time, etc.
I do not think your conclusion there is correct, and in fact it would be quite the opposite. I think Epicurus' point is that there is NO "eternal truth" apart from the nature / properties of the atoms, so "universal truth" that is true for everyone at all times is an impossibility, especially in the field of ethics.
However I am not sure we are together. Do you agree with what I have said in this post about there being NO eternal truth (especially in ethics) or no?
Yes, welcome Clive to the discussion and to the forum!
Daniel:
As to "It talks about pleasures and pains, but I guess it never fully encapsulates hedonism." The issue is really "What is hedonism"? The word has no obvious clear meaning -- "Pleasurism," if that is the obvious meaning, and is ambiguous and unclear; Epicurus set out a full and detailed set of beliefs, but "hedonism" is a word to which there is no definite meaning -- that's the main issue.
"That's just my opinion, though." <<< That's really the issue. Epicurus and most Greeks start with the more basic question of "What is the good?" and they look for ways to logically prove that something is "the highest good" before they launch off in pursuit of it, You'll see that in the opening to "On Ends."
"I will start then in the manner approved by the author of the system himself, by settling what are the essence and qualities of the thing that is the object of our inquiry; not that I suppose you to be ignorant of it, but because this is the logical method of procedure. We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil. This he sets out to prove as follows: Every animal, as soon as it is born, seeks for pleasure, and delights in it as the Chief Good, while it recoils from pain as the Chief Evil, and so far as possible avoids it. This it does as long as it remains unperverted, at the prompting of Nature's own unbiased and honest verdict.
Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them. (For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.) Strip mankind of sensation, and nothing remains; it follows that Nature herself is the judge of that which is in accordance with or contrary to nature. What does Nature perceive or what does she judge of, beside pleasure and pain, to guide her actions of desire and of avoidance?"
So in this kind of chain of reasoning the Epicureans first start off and ask: "We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else." They give the answer "pleasure" (which is a feeling) and as proof they say "that is what all animals do at birth before there is any possibility of corruption." They also point out as a second proof that absent feeling of some kind, the organism is dead. And they point out that we know these things by feeling alone -- in the same way we know that sugar is sweet, so there is no possibility of mistaken opinion corrupting our conclusion. (Thus "logic" is deprecated as subsidiary to the canonical faculties - 5 senses, anticipations, and feeling - which operate automatically and without opinion.)
Be sure to note here that in this "canon of truth," "truth" is not something give by god or as an ideal form -- all truth is something that is "true to us" or "true to a normal human being in those same circumstances." "Truth" is not something that floats in the air (Platonic ideal forms) or given by god (religious revelation) or existing as "essences" within the things around us (Aristotle). None of those alternative means of knowledge are true, according to Epicurus. The only "truth" is that which is real to us through our sensations/anticipations/feelings.
As to "hedonism" there is no accepted "author" or authority who can answer such questions or tell us what the "right answer according to Utilitarianism" is. Of course i might be fair to say that "Utilitarianism is what Jeremy Bentham said it is" but I doubt that you mean it that way; you are thinking there is an accepted definition and I don't think there is.
Now maybe Bentham defined "the greatest good of the greatest number" as the ultimate good of Utlitarianism. If so, we would need to look to see exactly how he stated that, but even if he said that, he's not advanced the ball at all because he has not defined "good." If we are asking "what is the ultimate good?" then to answer "the greatest good of the greatest number" is circular or even nonsensical. I am pretty sure that Bentham has not said "good = pleasure" but I am not an expert on Bentham or how he might have defined "good."
That's the kind of analysis Daniel that I am suggesting needs to be made. You'll find that Epicurus had a very clear set of principles which you can outline, and based on the answers you can line up basic positions on "What am I? (physics)" "What is the good?"(ethics) and "How do I know it with confidence?"(epistemology / canonics). You can basically do that with Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics as well, but the answers are much different.
Arete...eudaemonia... ataraxia... aponia and so on...well, IF you do not connect them with something pretty clear and a faculty given to you by Nature that are the feelings, just for the purpose to live a pleasant life... then bid all these words farewell as empty of meaning.
Since, Fg. 221. A philosopher's words are empty if they do not heal the suffering of the man. For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul. Epicurus.
Ok the greek word arete (Virtue)... let's say the virtue of justice as an anticipation that created through your experiences and their consequences, and still are created in your life. What was your criterion of truth to judge RIGHTLY who was fair and who was unfair in your life? Who is lying and who is not ? And which of his actions are beneficial or not beneficial for you ? How you'll judge all the issues around you in accordance with Nature and you nature ? Please, do not say me of what makes me happy and what is not, because if you ask a donkey that is full loaded on his back climbing a hill, that donkey maybe would say to you that is extremely happy. 
Frankly, I do not blame that donkey for that, since he does not examine who is saying lies and who is not. Donkeys do not study the Nature, do not fear death, do not know that one day will die. But if you load a donkey's back with a heavy load, yammering would say to you : Hey, mister you actions were against my nature : I'm not pleased....I pain (thrice I PAIN). and that poor creature will fall down in pains.
But what I say now ? Epictetus when he was a slave, as they say, he was tortured by his master Epaphroditus who twisted his leg. Enduring the pain with complete composure, Epictetus warned Epaphroditus that his leg would break, and when it did break, he said :"There, did I not tell you that it would break?"
Well, frankly THIS IS NOT the virtue of the pride and dignity of the Hellenes who fought for their natural and necessary, and for the purpose to live a pleasant life. This is not the self respect of a man who studies the Nature expressing his feelings of pleasure and pain. This is not Hellenic philosophy !!! This is an oriental cunning!!! This is a philosophy for SLAVES who are under the heavy load of Fate and Destiny are living in fully Apathy. These are not free and dignity men who want to live pleasantly their life. And who says that the genuine greek Epicurean Philosophy has any common thing with the stoicism is a total ignorant !
Welcome Clive ! Please introduce yourself and tell us a little about your background and interest in Epicurus. Thank you for joining us here!
Excellent excellent point Godfrey! for there to be "moral responsibility," philosophically speaking there has to be some source of that force --- either a creating god giving orders, or a realm of ideal forms such as Plato suggested.
That is core Epicureanism - NEITHER of those exist! But the question of their existence determines the answer to every question, because if they DO exist then they certainly would be controlling. The issue of whether they do or do not exist cannot be put aside - it must be answered FIRST (through Epicurean physics and epistemology)
Daniel I agree with Godfrey, and would add this as a summary point:
You wrote --
"Central to Utilitarianism:
- Principle of Maximal Utility: "the greatest happiness for the greatest number", love others as much as yourself
- Consequentialism: Actions are central to morality, morality of action = results of action and tendencies of results from action
- Impartiality: Don't use bias - value others' interests equally.
- Commensurability: Sum consequences of actions to determine whether its good or bad."
I think what I am reading is that you are very focused on the conclusions of the Utilitarian ethics. But to any Utilitarian who asserted these positions to me, I would ask this:
WHY?
WHY should the greatest happiness for the greatest number be considered a good goal?
WHY should I love others as much as yourself ? (Which in general I do fully reject 
)
WHY should I not be biased and value random people's interest as high as my own?
WHY should the SUM consequences determine whether something is good or bad? Why not just the consequences that effect me and my family and friends? Why should I care at all about someone who is neither a family nor a friend nor has any contact with me and them? By what standard is anything good or bad?
Also of those are deep philosophical questions that will vary depending on whether there is a heaven or hell, whether there is a god handing out rules, whether there is some ideal set of regulations somewhere to which I should conform, and on and on....with questions
of epistemology also (how do I know any of this is true? how do I know that there is a truth?)
I don't know that "Utilitarianism" answers any of those questions for us, does it?
I take that back - it appears Woltlab DOES have a user map option. Checking further now.
I need to find some kind of mapping / aggregation tool that hppefully allows people to create their own anonymous sign-in. I am pretty sure this forum itself does not offer it, but I will look.
Daniel that is a good start on an outline.
How do you perceive that Utilitarianism differs from Epicurus?
In my case, I know of no positions that are central to "Utilitarianism" other than the saw "the greatest good for the greatest number" that -- without a position on physics and epistemology, is hard to pin down as meaning anything in particular.
Yes definitely, if you think they are Ok with the publicity. I try to be very careful of the privacy of people so I try never to post anything without the permission of the people involved. But definitely it would be ideal to come up with a reference map with locations and points of contact.
No way we wait til 2030! It's been far too long a wait already. Surely by the end of 2020 at the very latest we can pull together something.
Talking to Michele today has reminded me that we need to pull together some kind of method for identifying where people are so we can work on finding mutually-workable locations.
Long ago I put together a section of the forum here to be divided geographically, but I bet we can do much better. Currently: Regional Epicurean Groups and Activities
I bet there this a way to do this graphically and make it into a feature of the forum. Presumably google maps or some other free service has a facility to pull allow people to mark themselves on a map and then provide a continuously-updated summary graphic. That we people could get an idea of how close they might be to pulling off a regional meeting. A sort of Epicurean Registry, but with good security and confidentiality to allow people to sign up without giving out their detailed person information.
If anyone knows such a thing, please let me know -- I will go looking myself in the meantime.
Your English seems very good -- very much more than adequate! And thanks for the link.
Yes I agree, but I this is an issue that I think it very important. I know that we all observe the emphasis on materialism in most people, and we see that they need to understand that it would be more efficient for their long-term happiness to put aside the materialism.
But among those of us who talk about Epicurus and understand at least the basics of the philosophy, I think we can also observe the reverse error, of thinking that living for simplicity is an end in itself. They take their eye off pleasure as the goal just as much as if they were pursuing pleasure in any other way incorrectly.
And I observe something else: that those people who seem to focus on simplicity also seem to combine simplicity with a passive attitude of resignation about what goes in in the rest of their lives and the world. Renunciation of materialism quickly seems to turn into renunciation of all social life and interaction with others. How else to explain the seeming passivity of people who like Epicurus but who seem to accept the idea that Stoicism is just another way to happiness?
We may agree with the stoics that living simply makes sense, but we do it so that we can remain independent of outside forces that would destroy our change to live as we like and pursue happiness as we like. We aren't running from emotion like the stoics - we are embracing emotions that make us happy and pursuing the joy of life while we are alive - which is our only chance.
Your general point is of course correct, Michele, but I think that Epicurus must have sensed the same concern I have for him to have come up with the statement VS63 "63. There is also a limit in simple living, and he who fails to understand this falls into an error as great as that of the man who gives way to extravagance."
That is a great idea. I know that there are two groups in Greece that hold regular live meetings. At the moment we really do not have any in the USA. Are you aware of any local groups in Italy or other areas?
Also Daniel, in regard to Godfrey's comment, have you sorted out in your mind whether you are primarily Epicurean or primarily "Utilitarian"? An outline of your thinking would help sort out the tension between the different labeling.
